david rigby

I lean in a slightly different direction: give 100% vesting upon layoff. At the very least, someone should crunch the numbers to determine how much $$ is involved.

I wonder if you need a POA (power of attorney) for them to talk to you. Another resource might be this "assistance" group from the American Academy of Actuaries. https://www.actuary.org/content/pension-assistance-list-pal. (I've participated myself.)

Not so sure about this statement. If the plan offers a LS, that should be included in whatever options are offered to participant (subject to what the plan says). The participant (not "they") makes the choice of payment form. It's possible the retroactive portion of a LS would equal the retroactive monthly payments. The payment form option is important because that determines whether any portion is rollable.

Assuming the entity is eligible for a 403b plan, I'm not aware of any requirement to terminate the existing plan. It could be frozen, w/o termination.

You don't identify your precise role. A consultant (i.e., someone more than a TPA) would ask questions to help the sponsor determine what is the underlying concern (which may or not be a problem), and then help the sponsor look for a solution, perhaps alternatives to consider.

As EG says, there is no requirement for either party to sign a QDRO (unless state law requires it). A DRO is signed by the court.

I re-read the referenced other thread, and suggest the arguments therein lead me to believe that waivers may be an "overreaction" to someone's objection to participating in the Plan. The EE does not create - or design - any employee benefit: (a) If there is a k-feature, it's pretty easy to elect no deferrals; (b) If there are ER contributions, there is no requirement that the EE (upon severance of employment) take anything; (c) If it's a DB plan, the EE is not required to "apply" for retirement benefits (yes, the RMD is somewhat different). In a nutshell, I'm unsure the ER has to do anything when an EE expresses a "religious objection" as suggested in the OP; the obligation to do something, or not do something, belongs to the EE.

It may be the payroll provider (and someone else) is unclear what a "catch-up" contribution really is. It does not exist until hitting a limit (eg, the 402g deferral limit, or a plan-imposed limit, etc.)

McKay Hochman no longer exists. https://benefitslink.com/cgi-bin/pr/index.cgi?rm=press_release;id=50737

I'm confused. Why are you involved with his rollover?

Maybe other problems also. IMHO, this implies a need to research whether it's appropriate to use waivers. Maybe, start by looking for other discussion threads with a similar theme. For example,

Does the form and/or the Plan include a statement about divorce automatically changing/invalidating a beneficiary election?

Another possible approach is for the consultant (that is, you) to educate ABC about why they should include the XYZ service. Just my opinion.

Either one works, but my experience has been (2).

Thanks for trying to help Peter, but I'm skeptical, especially about the "no review" part. There is a corollary example: acceptance of a J&S waiver. Suppose the J&S form and/or beneficiary waiver form form is returned with spouse signature. Since the ER is unlikely to have any knowledge about that particular handwriting, ERISA created the requirement for a witness. If this form has no witness signature (or the employee brings in the form and asks the HR rep to signoff on the already signed form), the ER must (IMHO) reject the form entirely. Of course, it can be true the ER representative who accepts the form might have no knowledge about the details, so somewhere up the line the form must be reviewed, which can give rise to a rejection of the submitted form. If such review is not immediate, the Plan is bound (as stated above by CuseFan) to follow the plan document and the law. The original question is about liability, which sounds like something a court might decide, so I'll decline an opinion on that part of the question, except to say "maybe". In my view, the ER is always "on the hook" to review the form before anything is paid.

Third.

C.B got it mostly correct. There is a possibility, which might not be common, that the "adjustment factors" (as specified in the plan) do not directly reflect the actual ages of participant and/or spouse. I've seen a few plans that define those factors much simpler; for example, the 50% Joint-and-Survivor factor defined as 95%, the 75% Joint-and-Survivor factor defined as 90%, and the 100% Joint-and-Survivor factor defined as 85%. However, if the factors do reflect actual ages, I estimate the difference between using YOB38 vs. YOB48 to be about 3-4%.

I'm not familiar with this term.

This is picky, but stated in case less-informed readers stumble across this thread. Code G applies to a Direct Rollover, not quite identical to "rolled it over".

Did you ask for legal fees? If so, the answer might be an award of zero. If not, you/attorney must determine if you have any opportunity for additional claim. Could this mean something simple like, "your lawyer screwed up"?

In general, plan sponsors (and the TPAs they hire) will do better to follow the plan document rather than the broker.

What? No FORTRAN?

Ask if a nearby law school and/or local bar association sponsors a "pro bono day"?

Umm ... the plan document will answer this question. Look for the definitions of "beneficiary" and "spouse". Hint: your "not sure when" comment might be important.

In my observation, most documents do not define "retire" or "retirement", at least not directly. Likely, in your example, it means a severance of employment on or after attaining whatever eligibility for any specific commencement date. Perhaps the plan defines Normal Retirement and/or Early Retirement?